Jersey not getting its bang for the buck

Not getting fair return
It is refreshing for someone to finally notice that federal tax law is hugely skewed against New Jersey citizens (“Repeal may save some from nasty tax surprise,” Dec. 13). However, it is not only the AMT that disproportionately affects our state. We have the highest per-capita income, the highest percentage of families making more than $250,000 per year, and rank dead last in return of our federal tax dollars. Of every dollar sent to Washington, we get the benefit back of merely 61 cents.

Discontinuing the Bush tax cuts for higher earners would mean even more billions leaving the state. These are resources — what Gov. Jon Corzine used to call cold, hard cash — we can ill afford to lose. So why do our elected officials continue to press for a tax policy that will hurt the state, effectively transferring money from here to everywhere else?

Our senior senator, Frank Lautenberg, was quoted as saying: “Because of a good business career I made some money, and the last thing I need is a tax cut. I’d rather have a strong country than a tax cut. That’s my gift to my kids, that’s my gift to my country.”
If his kids live in Alabama or North Dakota, they will do just fine. But if they live here, then they will be hurt like the rest of us.Michael Pickert, Livingston

Health care costs
Your editorial on the recent health care ruling striking down the requirement that all individuals must buy health insurance is off target (“A blow for liberty in health care ruling?” Dec. 15).

While certainly some younger individuals will “gamble that they won’t get sick,” the primary reason individuals do not get health insurance — young or old — is that they cannot afford it. The Obama bill does nothing to bring down the high cost of insurance and health care. The high costs of medical technology, supplies, doctors and for-profit health care companies seeking to maximize profit, the large number of individuals seeking to win the lottery through malpractice lawsuits and fraud, and the often overly large malpractice settlements (now unregulated) will continue to drive up costs.

Requiring the working poor to buy health insurance will only drive more into poverty.Paul Schryba, Mountainside

Unconstitutional
As usual, your editorials are proof of The Star-Ledger’s liberal and socialistic slants. The editorial regarding the Virginia court’s decision on the mandate clause in the ObamaCare bill certainly supports my contention. The ruling is not “a blow for liberty,” but a decision that is based on the U.S. Constitution.

I don’t see any reason people should be forced to buy health insurance, or pay a penalty for not buying it, when a majority of the people already have insurance of some kind.

This is a free country, and no one should be forced by the federal government to buy anything. Yes, we are forced to buy auto insurance, but not if you do not own a car. Once the government gets a foothold in your life by demanding that you have to buy something or pay a penalty, what’s next, telling you what you can say, or where to live, or where you can go?

It is my hope the mandate clause is found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that ObamaCare is eventually defeated in Congress. We don’t need socialism in this country. We get along fine with the way things are now.Richard A. Ketay, Newark

Superintendent’s pay
I am surprised, almost shocked, that you would publish a letter (“Overpaid superintendents,” Dec. 15) so obviously lacking in understanding.

Whether I agree or disagree with the salary cap is not my issue, I feel it serves no purpose to give exposure to such comments as the letter writer’s. How can the writer say, and you publish, that “these superintendents deserve to make half of what they currently earn?”

Would he say that about his doctor, lawyer or other highly educated professional? Does he think that just anyone can lead a school district?

His comments add nothing to the conversation.Alan Rubin, Rahway

Commit to Highlands protection
The New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council was created because development pressures in the region were jeopardizing the drinking water supply for 5.4 million residents. In adopting the Highlands Act, the Legislature found, “the protection of the New Jersey Highlands, because of its vital link to the future of the State’s drinking water supplies and other key natural resources, is an issue of State level importance that cannot be left to the uncoordinated land use decisions of 88 municipalities, seven counties, and a myriad of private landowners.”

Considering the consequences resulting from the degradation of the Highlands water supply, Gov. Chris Christie must make a serious commitment to appoint members to the council who will strive to further protect these resources; not individuals who challenge the act’s legal basis and pander to developers seeking to destroy these resources to selfishly line their own pockets.

I, like The Star-Ledger editorial board, am very interested to see the report issued by the DEP on the stakeholder meetings. The Highlands landowner-stakeholder meeting was so packed with supporters that the department decided to hold a second meeting specifically for “harmed” landowners. Hopefully, the report will accurately emphasize the groundswell of support for the act and that more landowners viewed it as protective and constructive than harmful. Max Wolfinger, Clinton Township